Alright, agorists, I need some help founding a sovereign agorist company. Through the power of the digital world this seems very feasible if all business is conducted online. Through what kind of agreement should such a company be founded upon? I certainly don't agree with limited liability. Give me some advice and perspective here.

I am presuming this is all that is required:

"This company will not threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the entity who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor."

I don't want to put all of my goals out there until I have them fully developed. I plan on starting several online initiatives, the first involving a social site that gives incentive to great content through Bitcoin. I just want to make it clear my company will not be subject to the jurisdiction of any other entity.

"This company will not threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the entity who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor."

Is there a good place to read up on the definition of "violence" in the above statement? I'm guessing it has some specific technical meaning beyond the common usage. I need to learn a bit more.

"This company will not threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the entity who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor."

Is there a good place to read up on the definition of "violence" in the above statement? I'm guessing it has some specific technical meaning beyond the common usage. I need to learn a bit more.

thanks

Violence is simply force. Making an individual act (or not) under the use of threat of injury or death.

Fuck your pedantic philosophy. I don't need it. I don't feel like using or condoning violence to sustain myself and my idea. Again, I just won't god damn condone it as long as I feel entitled to my life and that every individual is as well. You warmongers can shove it.

Let me fully define what my perspective considers violence. Under the assumption a man owns his body, the labor it exerts whether it be the pulling of a lever, the pushing of a set of keys or the movement of a pen, is his own. Whatever reaction (whether it be a share of a bigger product) exclusively comes from that should be fully his own. Any other entity claiming ownership of a man's labor needs force to extract it. This force is considered violence.

So, in conclusion, claiming any part of a man is considered violence if the claim can be backed by force. Claiming a part through reason is absolutely voluntary and not violent.

Feel free to address any holes.

Thank you for being patient. I appreciate your time discussing this with me. I apologize for my anger and disrespect.

If it's going to be an Agorist company, it should have some element of civil disobedience, like enabling tax evasion or other illegal activities through anonymity.

Not necessarily. Agorism is counter-economic activity consciously geared towards a libertarian goal. As such it implies things like reinvestment of counter-economic profit into the counter-economy rather than the mainstream economy. But a counter-economic actor need not provide defense against state coercion in order to be an agorist. On the contrary, such things are only enabled by prior, simpler counter-economic activity. E.g., a farmer could be an agorist if he would sell his produce under the table, and then would consciously choose to hire a fellow counter-economist to fix his farm equipment rather than taking it to John Deere for repairs. He would be more of an agorist if he chose a counter-economic repairman whom he knew would do likewise - in that way, trust built around a mutual opposition to the mainstream economy is established, and on that trust such things as agorist insurance, dispute resolution, and protection (against the state and other criminal elements) can be founded.

Please either post a link to something that's publicly accessible or put it in your own words. Otherwise, it looks like you're just making an assertion without backing it up. Giving someone a laundry list of authors isn't an acceptable substitute for a rational argument. If you don't believe me then read Dr. Seuss, Hitler and J.K. Rowling, in that order.

I have lived for the past 7 years on busking/performance, under-the-table jobs, and selling products I made myself...no taxes paid on any of it. I consider that to be agorist in the sense that it is grey-market (otherwise legal goods/services, transacted under tax-radar). Of course, I pay sales tax, and the taxes on petrol, but I have yet to figure out a way around that.

If you code, write, perform, or can home-brew a product that can be sold to the public (farmer's markets are a great venue) under the tax-radar, then I think that qualifies you as agorist.

I have lived for the past 7 years on busking/performance, under-the-table jobs, and selling products I made myself...no taxes paid on any of it. I consider that to be agorist in the sense that it is grey-market (otherwise legal goods/services, transacted under tax-radar). Of course, I pay sales tax, and the taxes on petrol, but I have yet to figure out a way around that.

Been to PorcFest?

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

I have lived for the past 7 years on busking/performance, under-the-table jobs, and selling products I made myself...no taxes paid on any of it. I consider that to be agorist in the sense that it is grey-market (otherwise legal goods/services, transacted under tax-radar). Of course, I pay sales tax, and the taxes on petrol, but I have yet to figure out a way around that.

If you code, write, perform, or can home-brew a product that can be sold to the public (farmer's markets are a great venue) under the tax-radar, then I think that qualifies you as agorist.

What did you have in mind Atlas?

I have too many ideas in mind. I would prefer them not to be subject to taxation and corporate laws but it seems impossible.

So, in conclusion, claiming any part of a man is considered violence if the claim can be backed by force. Claiming a part through reason is absolutely voluntary and not violent.

Feel free to address any holes.

Thank you for being patient. I appreciate your time discussing this with me. I apologize for my anger and disrespect.

So you're saying if a simple man creates an object from gold, and then a witty man comes along and convinces him that he should give it up, that is justified?

People are generally not rational, look at the state of the world today and the sheeple that inhabit it. Global governance has convinced most that the systems we currently have in place are the best and they go along with it voluntarily but it does not make it Right.

So, in conclusion, claiming any part of a man is considered violence if the claim can be backed by force. Claiming a part through reason is absolutely voluntary and not violent.

Feel free to address any holes.

Thank you for being patient. I appreciate your time discussing this with me. I apologize for my anger and disrespect.

So you're saying if a simple man creates an object from gold, and then a witty man comes along and convinces him that he should give it up, that is justified?

People are generally not rational, look at the state of the world today and the sheeple that inhabit it. Global governance has convinced most that the systems we currently have in place are the best and they go along with it voluntarily but it does not make it Right.

Sorry for picking, I'm just interested.

First of all, if you apologize for having a discussion with me again, I will not be pleased. ; )

Most organisms are hardly sentient. What is not moral is to claim the ignorant are entitled to the service of the competent. That is simply not a compromise.

We either let the will of the competent serve the ignorant (which they naturally will out of human empathy) in addition to letting the ignorant stumble upon knowledge as man has always done.